9 PLANNING & PROGRAMMING COMMITTEESEPTEMBER 18, 2002

9

Metropolitan

Transportation

Authority

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA

90012-2952

SUBJECT: MID-CITY/EXPOSITION TRANSIT CORRIDOR

ACTION: NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE CONTRACT E0016 WITHDMJM+HARRIS TO PROVIDE PRELIMINARYENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE MID-CITY/EXPOSITION LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION

A. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and execute a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract with DMJM+ttarris for the Mid-City/Exposition.Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project Preliminary Engineering Design Services an amount not to exceed $16,241,078.

B. Defer exercising any contract options for design of below-ground segmentspending separate review and approval by the Board.

RATIONALE

On June 28, 2001, the Board adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for theMid-City/Westside Transit Corridor, comprised of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Wilshire Boulevard and Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the Exposition Right-of-Way.The approved LPA for the Exposition Corridor extends from Downtown LosAngeles to Venice/Washington in Culver City with a possible minimum operablesegment to at least Vermont Avenue.

On August 31, 2001, MTA submitted a request to enter Preliminary Engineering tothe Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the Exposition Corridor. This requestwas approved by the FTA on February 6, 2002. Based on this approval, staffprepared a Request for Proposals for Engineering Design Services, which wasreleased on May 30, 2002. Proposals for this work were received on July 8, 2002and were evaluated by a Committee comprised of MTA Planning, Procurement andEngineering Staff as well as the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation.

Completion of Preliminary Engineering is a necessary step in the environmentalclearance of the project. The current schedule calls for PE and the FEIS/EIR

(separate contract) to be completed in August 2003, so that the project can be eligible forfunding from the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act (TEA 21).

Design of Below Ground Segments- The University of Southern California and other ExpositionPart Stakeholders have requested consideration of a subway/tunnel segment between Figueroaand Vermont. Studies completed in the early 1990’s had indicated the need for a gradeseparation at Exposition/Figueroa to mitigate traffic impacts. The present DEIS/EIR does notindicate the need for such a grade separation, based on the reduced traffic impacts of the presentdowntown connector route, which follows Hill Street, rather than Flower Street. Nonetheless,the impacts of above-ground LRT are considered by stakeholders in the area to be too severe tobe supportable as an at-grade system on Exposition Boulevard. In particular, advocates for atunnel option on Exposition Boulevard cite special events such as the Los Angeles Marathon andother major Coliseum sporting events as situations where at-grade transit service would need tobe curtailed if it were at-grade.

The DEIS/EIR identified the additional costs of subway in this segment to be $120 million. Staffhas undertaken value-engineering analysis of this figure and has found ways to make the tunnelsegment shallower, however, these studies have also indicated the need to extend the tunnelsection to make it slightly longer, resulting in no net savings, and perhaps some overall increasesin costs above the $120 million figure. Lower cost alternatives may be possible, however, thesewould not provide full grade-separation at both Figueroa and Vermont. Options in thePreliminary Engineering contract would allow these cost estimates to be refined, based on thedevelopment of designs for a below-ground section. Additional funding of up to $75 millionmay be available to fund a below-ground segment in this area, if a measure on the November2002 Statewide ballot passes, which is sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League.Should this measure pass, the Board could consider authorizing staff to proceed with design ofthe below-ground segment in this area.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Funding of $10,800,000 for the Mid-City/Exposition Transit Corridor Engineering Design isincluded in the FY03 budget in cost center 4350, Westside Area Team, under project number800113/2.2.10.01. Since this is a multi-year contract, the cost center manager and ExecutiveOfficer will be accountable for budgeting the costs in future years, including any options that areexercised. In FY02, no funds were expended on this line item.

Funds for the project are provided through a grant from the State of California TransportationCongestion Relief Program (TCRP), which have been committed to the Mid-City/WestsideTransit Corridor and are not available for use on other MTA programs or projects.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

It would be possible to prepare the preliminary engineering for this project using more in-housestaff and fewer outside consultants. This option, however, would require a significant amount of

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 2

new hiring which was not considered to be cost-effective, given the short-term nature of theproject.

It would be possible to prepare preliminary engineering for a shorter segment of the project.This option is not consistent with the Locally Preferred Alternative adopted by the Board in June2001 and would not provide the necessary engineering information to environmentally clear thefull project. A Minimum Operable Segment to at least Vermont Avenue will be identified in thePE/FEIS/EIR work and the Board can consider phased construction of the project once thisinformation has been prepared.

The Board could defer preparation of Preliminary Engineering at this time. Such an actionwould delay completion of the project and jeopardize appro.ximately $69 million in TrafficCongestion Relief Program (TCRP) funds that have been programmed for the project.

BACKGROUND

In 1999, the Board authorized preparation of a MIS/EIS/EIR for the Mid-City/Westside TransitCorridor to consider alternatives to the Metro Red Line Mid-City subway project, which hadbeen suspended by the Board in 1998.

The first phase of the study was to prepare a Re-evaluation/Major Investment Study (MIS). TheMIS was completed in February 2000, at which time the Board directed that a combination ofBus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) be carried forward for environmentalreview along the Wilshire and Expostion transit corridors.

The second phase of the study was to prepare the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR). The DEIS/EIR was completed April 2001 and circulated for public comment and review. On June 28, 2001, followingconsideration of all public comment, the MTA Board adopted a Locally Preferred Alternative forthe Mid-City/Westside Corridor which included a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project on WilshireBoulevard and a Light Rail Transit Project along the Exposition Right of Way. The adoptedExposition LRT project is 9.6 miles long and extends from Downtown Los Angeles toVenice/Washington Boulevards in Culver City. The Board directed that a Minimum OperableSegment be considered between Downtown Los Angeles and Exposition Park. The full projectwould have ten stations consisting of 3 existing stations and 7 new stations. The MOS segmentwould extend to at least Vermont Avenue, however the exact length will be determined duringthe upcoming final environmental and PE phase, when detailed funding plans and environmentalreviews have been completed. The Board also approved a motion to establish a vision and intentto ultimately complete the project to Santa Monica.

Following adoption of the LPA by the MTA Board in June 2001, staff submitted a Request toEnter Preliminary Engineering to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in August 2001. TheFTA evaluated the Exposition LRT project against several criteria and in February 2002approved the project for entry into Preliminary Engineering. Under federal regulations, both theFinal EIS/EIR and Preliminary Engineering must be prepared concurrently. The Final EIS/EIR

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 3

for this project will be prepared under a separate contract that will be considered as a separateitem for Board approval.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Procurement SummaryA- 1 Procurement HistoryA-2 List of Contractors/Subcontractors

Prepared by: David Mieger, DirectorWestside Area Planning Team

John Doidge, Contract AdministratorProcurement

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 4

~ou~u:~v~:Oe f~::rning and Development

Roger SnOot -eChief Executive Officer

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 5

BOARD REPORT ATTACHMENT APROCUREMENT SUMMARY

ACTIONNegotiate and Execute Contract E0016 to DMJM+HARRIS to provide Preliminary Engineering

Design Services for Mid City/Exposition Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project

1. Contract Number: E00162. Recommended Proposer:3. Cost/Price Analysis Information:

I A. Bid/Proposed Price: $16,241,078 Estimated Amount: Not disclosed pendingcompletion of negotiation.

’ B. Details of Significant Variances: TBD4. ’ Contract Type: Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)

Procurement Dates:A. Issued: 5/30/02B. Advertised: 5/23/02- 5/24/02

~C. Pre-proposal Conference: 6/10/02 (Approximately 100 in attendance)

’ D. Proposals Due: Technical Proposals 7/08/02, Cost Proposals 7/18/02E. Pre-Qualification Completed: 8/02/02F. Conflict of Interest Form Submitted to Ethics: Yes

6. Small Business Participation:A. Bid Goal: 35% Date Small Business Evaluation Completed: 8/02/02B. Small Business Commitment: 35%

7. Invitation for Bid/Request for Proposal Data: Not Applicable To Contract ModificationsNotifications Sent: ! Bids/Proposals Picked up: 76 Bids/Proposals Rec’d: 4Approx. 1,871

8. Evaluation Information:A. Bidders/Proposers Names:DMJM+HARRISExpo Partners (JointVenture)HKR Team Expo (JointVenture)URS Corporation

Bid/Proposal Amount:B. Bid/Proposed Price: $16,241,078

N/AN/A

N/A

Best and FinalOffer Amount:N/A

B. Evaluation Methodology: Most Technically Qualified (A&E Procurement - Brooks Act)Protest Information:A. Protest Period End Date: 8/19/02B. Protest Receipt Date: 8/15/02

10.C. Disposition of Protest Date: TBDContract Administrator:John K. DoidgeProject Manager:Essam Aly

Telephone Number:922-1034Telephone Number:922-3099

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 6

BOARD REPORT ATTACHMENT A-1PROCUREMENT HISTORY

ACTION

Negotiate and Execute Contract E0016 with DMJM+HARRIS to provide PreliminaryEngineering Design Services for the

Mid City/Exposition Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project

A. BACKGROUND ONCONTRACTOR

DMJM+HARRIS has been supporting the Los Angeles community since 1947. Their CorporateHeadquarters are located in downtown Los Angeles. DMJM+HARRIS has prior experience inworking with the MTA on the Metro Green Line, Metro Blue Line and Metro Red Line. Otherlocal rail experience includes the Pasadena Gold Line and Metrolink.

B. PROCUREMENT BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2002, four (4) technical proposals were received in response to the MidCity/Exposition Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project, Preliminary Engineering Design ServicesRFP. On July 18, 2002, four (4) cost proposals were received.

In accordance with MTA’s Procurement Policies and Procedures regarding Architecture andEngineering Procurements a technical evaluation was performed by a Proposal Evaluation Teamto determine the most qualified Proposer. On July 26, 2002, the Proposal Evaluation Teamcompleted the technical review and selected DMJM+HARRIS as the most qualified Proposer.

The MTA established a thirty-five percent (35%) DBE participation for the Mid City/ExpositionLRT, Preliminary Engineering Design Services. The recommended awardee has committed to meetthe goal. The final determination of goal commitment shall be made upon completion of finalnegotiations.

C. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

In accordance with MTA’s Procurement Policies and Procedures regarding Architecture andEngineering Procurements a technical evaluation was performed by a Proposal Evaluation Teamto determine the most qualified Proposer. On July 26, 2002, the Proposal Evaluation Teamcompleted the technical review and selected DMJM+HARRIS as the most qualified Proposer.

D. COST/PRICE ANALYSIS EXPLANATION OF VARIANCES

The final negotiated amount has not been determined, but will comply with all requirements ofMTA Procurement, including fact-finding, clarifications, cost analysis, legal and pre-award auditbefore the Contract is executed. Staff has not disclosed the MTA’s Estimate positions since itwill jeopardize staff’s ability to negotiate the best and lowest price possible for the MTA.

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 7

BOARD REPORT ATTACHMENT A-2LIST OF CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS

CONTRACT NO. E0016

PRIME CONTRACTORDMJM+Harris

SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTORSARELLANO ASSOCIATESMYRA L. FRANK & ASSOCIATESKAKU ASSOCIATES INC.KAL K_RISHNAN CONSULTING SERVICESJACKIE PATTERSON & ASSOCIATESTHE ROBERT GROUPMELENDEZ DESIGN PARTNERSDIAZ YOURMAN & ASSOCIATES

OTHER SUBCONTRACTORSBOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.CORRPRO COMPANOES INC.EGIS-SEMLAY INC.ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA PARTNERSHIPPSOMASHARRIS MILLER MILLER & HANSON INC.

Mid-City/Exposition Engineering Design Services 8

9Motion by Supervisor Yvonne B. Burke

Item No. 9 Award of Preliminary Engineering (PE) Design Services Contract forExposition LRT Project

Over the past several years, I have been expressing my concerns regarding a numberof issues having to do with the need for grade separation at congested intersections,school safety and noise associated with the project on the Exposition right-of-way andI’m sure that no one is surprised at my raising these issues at this time.

I feel that it is necessary to ensure, that prior to entering into negotiations and asubsequent contract, these issues are being properly addressed as part of thePreliminary Engineering scope of work.

I, Therefore, Move that the MTA Board approve the staff recommendation and includethe following revisions:

As an initial task of the PE study, MTA shall begin with a full evaluation of at-grade segments, at the following locations:

ExpositionNermont,¯ Exposition/Normandy,¯ Exposition/Western,¯ Exposition/Crenshaw, and

Exposition/La Brea.Such evaluations must include a complete examination of aerial or belowgrade separations at each intersection such that MTA staff can exercisecontract options to conduct complete PE design for aerial or below gradeseparations in the event that MTA cannot fully identify measures (safetyimprovements, aesthetic, urban design improvements, traffic improvements,street improvements, etc.) to mitigate at-grade design at each respectiveintersection to the satisfaction of the PUC and LADOT. The MTA Boardhereby authorizes the CEO to negotiate and execute such a contractamendment to conduct PE for these aerial segments.

9

In order to address the concerns raised by the community east of FigueroaStreet, as part of the PE Scope of Work, MTA shall study alternativealignments for a non-revenue connector between Hill Street and Long BeachAvenue.

If new sources of funding are specifically identified for an undergroundsegment in the Exposition Park area (e.g., Proposition 51), MTA willimmediately seek Board approval to exercise the contract option ofconducting PE to define a belowground alternative at University of SouthernCalifornia/Exposition Park.

9MOTION BY DIRECTORS JOHN FASANA, PAM O’CONNOR ANDZEV YAROSLAVSKY

Amendment to Preliminary Engineering (PE) Design Services Contract forExposition I_RT Project

9

The Exposition Light Rail project will be a key asset in the County’s regionaltransportation network. It is important that it be constructed in a cost effective manner toensure that sufficient funds are available to complete the line. Current cost estimatesshow that the cost for the first phase of the Expo Light Rail to Venice/Robertson will beapproximately $630 million. Presently, this light rail project is one of the more expensiveprojects in the country, with costs exceeding $70 million or more for each new mile oflight rail. These costs are higher than other comparable properties throughout thecountry. MTA has the opportunity to proactively manage the Expo Light Rail design andconstruction costs while delivering a high quality product to our customers.

Since the extent of federal funding for this project and the timing of these funds isuncertain and because local resources are stretched, it is imperative that MTA takeimmediate action to reduce the costs of this project and find ways to build an efficient,cost-effective project while still ensuring safety and consumer convenience. The ExpoLight Rail will play a crucial part in alleviating traffic and congestion to the Westside.However, the $630 million projected cost for phase one will delay our efforts to bring thelight rail all the way to Santa Monica.

We understand that peer review panels at key milestones are included in thepreliminary engineering proposal before the MTA Board. The MTA should takeadvantage of these panels and find ways to steamline this project and reduce designand construction costs. The preliminary engineering contractor and the MTA shouldimmediately convene such a panel to review MTAs design standards.

We therefore move that once the preliminary engineering contract is finalized, anindependent peer review panel be immediately convened to review MTAs designstandards and make recommendations to bring the design, engineering andconstruction costs of this project in line with comparable projects. Participants shouldinclude high level project managers from other properties with experience in buildingcost effective light rail systems and should be familiar with urban traffic and communitymitigation issues. The recommendations of the peer review panel should be presentedto the MTA Board for review and approval.

We further move that the MTA shall use this peer review panel to reassess the entirebudget for the Exposition Light Rail line and make recommendations to reduce the costof this project through value engineering, cost containment and by using the budgetsand experiences of comparable light rail systems.

Lastly, we move that the peer review panel should meet at important milestones duringthe preliminary engineering of this project and their findings should be presented to theMTA Board for review.

CONCERNED NEIGHBORS ALONG EXPOSITIONRIGHT-OF-WAY

P.O.BOX 781307 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90016, PHONE/FAX 323-932-1959

AN OVERVIEW OF CONCERNS

PRESENTED TO MTA

SEPTEMBER 18, 2002

CLINT SIMMONS EE.COORDINATOR

CONCERNS

NOISE 1N RESIDENTIAL AREAS

SAFETY FOR SCHOOL CHII.DREN

TRAFFIC PROBLEMS

LOST OF COMMERCE

E.xpositionR~ght-of-WaYPrelim.inaryPlanning Study

Final Report

Prepared for theLos Angeles County Transportation 0ommission

Prepared byBRW, Inc.

in Association with’ KATZ, OKITSU & ASSOCIATES.. DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES

ROSE & KINDEL

May !992

~/LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONLACTC

REFERENCE MATERIALS

SOUND LEVEL IVIETER, GENRAD TYPE 1565-B

SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL RANGE, 95-112(DbA)

~OUI’CC,’5Noise Levels of CommonTM ’~

Sound Source SPL (dBA)

,4~r raid siren at 50 ~’t (th~cshold of pain)Max{mum levets in audience at rock concertsOt~ platform by passing subway trainOn sidewalk by passing heavy truck or busOn sidewalk by ~ypical highwayOp, sidewalk by passing automobiles with mt4,’flersTypical urban area backgroui~d/busy o~q~ceTypical suburbai~ area backg~-ound

Quiet suburban area at nightTypical tufa! area at nighttsol~ted broadcast studioAudiometric (hearing testi~g) boothThreshold o[-hearing without hearing da~nage

009O

7O6050403020tO0

",¢ change i.,~ ] dBA is a just noticeable chat:ge in SPL; a cha~.gc in !0 dBa is

perceived as a doubling or hatvie, g in SPL.

SOME NEIGHBORHOODS A!,ONG EXPO RIGHT-OF-WAY

LOOKING WEST FROM REDONDO BOULVARD

JA1VIF.S A. FOSHAY MIDDLE SCHOOL

COMMERCE AT CRENSHAW AND EXPOSITIONWII,L BE LOST

MTA STATION ON WILLOWBROOK AND COMPTON BLVDSOVERPASS AT ROSECRANS

MISSION ROAD AND FREEMONTCITY OF ALHAMBRA

Item 9: amendents to Exposition preliminary engineering~¢~ ~

page 1 of 1

/26/02: Requested Amendments to the Motions

9. PLANNING & PROGRAMMING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED, UNDERRECONSIDERATION, APPROVAL (3-0-1) AS AMENDED:

A. negotiation and execution of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract with DMJM+Harris for the Mid-City/ExpositionLight Rail Transit (LRT) Project Preliminary Engineering Design Services for an amount not to exceed $16,241,078;and

B. deferring exercise of any contract options for design of below-ground segments pending separate review and approvalby the Board.

BURKE AMENDMENT:

That the MTA Board approve the staff recommendation and include the following revisions: 1. As an initial task of the PEstudy, MTA shall begin with a full evaluation of at-grade segments, at the following locations, AND ALL OTHERINTERSECTIONS IN TERMS OF SAFETY IN ACCORDANCE WITH and cost-effectively transcending and surpassingTHE PUC PROCESS:

¯ Exposition/Vermont,¯ Exposition/Normandy,¯ Exposition/Western,¯ Exposition/Crenshaw, and¯ Expositiun/La Brea.

All options for s~afety mitigation: :,kc,-ald shall be priced and their benefits and cost-effectiveness quantified, and ifdetermined to be necessary in order to solve a problem at an intersection, then design would be authorized by the MTA Board.

2. In order to address the concerns raised by the community east of Figueroa Street, as part of the PE Scope of Work, MTAshall study .~~~~~j~_n_a_l alternative :llgr~=rx: !~t~S...for a non-revenue connector between Hill Street and Long Beach Avenue.

mitigation.

HELD OVER UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER 5TH

3. The evaluation of at-grade segments shall also include a full examination of their feasibility~ coasts, benefits, and

FASANA, O’CONNOR & YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT:

That once the preliminary engineering contract is finalized, an independent peer review panel be immediately convened toreview MTA’s design standards and make recommendations to bring the design, engineering and construction costs of thisproject in line with comparable projects_[!k~tBfr ~gtrop_~!.i_t~._n....!!.~2g~8,.. Participants should include high level project managersfrom other properties with experience in building cost effective light rail systems and should be familiar with urban traffic andcommunity mitigation issues. The recommendations of the peer review panel ;,~,,~uld shall be presented to the MTA Board forreview and approval.

Further that the MTA shall use this peer review panel to reassess the entire budget for the Exposition Light Rail line and makerecommendations to reduce ~_b_sta_ot_i~_l!y .the cost of this project through value engineering, cost containment and by using thebudgets and experiences of comparable light rail systems.

Lastly, that the peer review panel should meet at important milestones during the preliminary engineering of this projectand their findings should be presented to the MTA Board for review.

9/26/2002, 10:20:03 AM

JAN PERRYCOUNCILWOMAN

September 18, 2002

PUBLIC WORKSCHAIR

PUBLIC SAFETYVICE-CHAIR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAND EMPLOYMENTMEMBER

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority Planning CommitteeOne GatewayPtazaLos Angeles, California 90012

RE: Non-Revenue Connector Line and Train Maintenance/Storage Yard

Dear Committee Members:

I am writing to protest the development of a non-revenne connector line and maintenancerail yard proposed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority("MTA") as part of the Mid-City/Westside Transit Corridor Project (also known as "Exposition Line"). As part of the Exposition Line operations, MTA proposed to run non-revenue connector rail line through the middle of a very densely populated, low-income, and pedestrian trafficked neighborhood. The purpose of the non-revenue line isto connect rail cars from the existing Blue Line with the proposed Project line duringpeak hours. The proposal for the non-revenue line was never brought to the attention ofmy constituents even after Neighbors For an Improved Community alerted MTArepresentatives to a Complete lack of outreach to neighborhood residents.

Running light rail in the same direction as the Long Beach Blue Line and in such closeproximity is (1) a waste of money and (2) does not serve this low-income community’stransportation needs. The next east to west light rail train is on Imperial Boulevard,approximately eight miles away from the Washington Street Blue Line with no other raillines in between.

Two alternative routes for the maintenance rail line have been submitted to MTA by myoffice and Neighbors For an Improved Community on several occasions, which will betterserve the transportation needs of all the people of this community:

(1) A connector train Coming off the Exposition Line (east) on Jefferson and Broadway,turning right on Broadway (south) to Florence, turning left (east) to Long Beach Boulevardto connect to the Long Beach Boulevard Blue Line or

(2) A connector train coming offthe Exposition Line (east) on Jefferson and Broadway,turning right on Broadway (south) to Slauson, turning left (east) to Long Beach to connectto the Long Beach Boulevard Blue Line.

CiTY HALL " 200 NORTH SPRING STREET ~ SUITE 420 * LOS ANGELES; CA 9OO12 * (213) 473-7009DISTRICT OFFICE ¯ 4703 S. BROADWAY AVE. ¯ LOS ANGELES, CA 90037 ~ (323) 846-265|

eeNVIRONMeNTAL DeFeNse

finding the ways that work

September 18, 2002

Los Angeles County MTAHanning and Programming CommitteeOne Gateway HazaMail Stop 99-22-5Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: ’ Mid-City/Exposition Transit Corridor Preliminary Engineering ContractNon-Revenue Connector Line

I am writing in support of Neighbors for an Improved Community (NIC), a group residents, parents, block clubs, religious groups, and environmental groups who areconcerned about development plans in the central Los Angeles area and want to bring thevoice of the community’s residents to decision-makers on the matters that affect our day-to-day lives.

Specifically, we are conherned abSut MTA’s plans to move forward with a PreliminaryEngineering Contact for the Mid-City/Exposition Transit Corridor (’~Project") withoutconsidering the environmental and community impacts of the planned non-revenueconnector line proposed as part of the project. As we have previously stated, we believethe Project, including the light rail analyzed in Alternative 3 and 3a of the EnvironmentalImpact Report ("EIR") for the Project, could promote economic growth and access to job opportunities for community members in the central Los Angeles neighborhood~

However, and as we have repeatedly stated, there are significant problems with theProject as it is currently planned, specifically: (1) the low-income, minority communitymembers who will be impacted by construction and operations ofthe non-revenueconnector line proposed in the light rail versions of the Project ~oere ignored by MTA intbeirscopingandplanningin violation of federal law and regulations, and (2) the EIRfailed to properly analyze the significant environmental impacts inherent in the "construction and operation of the non-revenue connector lirle. As a result of these

¯ deficiencies, we have repeatedly requested that further engineering and environmentalanalysis be conducted regarding the non-revenue connector line, including aconsideration of alternative placement of the line, with opportunities for publicparticipation from NIC members and other community residents.

In our review of the materials made available by MTA before today’s meeting, furtherstudy of the non-revenue line does not appear to be included in the scope work in the

Los Angeles Environmental Justice Project Office ¯ One Park Plaza ̄ 3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 ̄ Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel 213 386 5501 - Fax 213 386 5577 ̄ www.environmentaldefense.org

New York, NY ̄ Washington, DC ̄ Oakland, CA ̄ Boulder, CO ̄ Raleigh, NC. Austin, TX. Boston, MATotally chlorine free 400% post-consumer recycled paper

Neighbors For an Improved CommunityResidentes Para un Mejor Vecindario

458 East 32nd StreetLos Angeles, CA 9001 I

Phone: 323/231-4532Fax: 213/612-$712

Emaih cnunez59@msn.com

September 26, 2002

Members of the LACMTABoard of Directors -x,~Los Angeles County MTAOne Gateway Plaza i:Mail Stop 99-3-1 ~’Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Re: Non-Revenue Connector Line of the Exposition Line

Dear Board Member:

Neighbors For an Improved Community ("NIC") and this community do not oppose the plansfor the Exposition Line but strongly oppose this portion of the project because it is halfa blockaway from 28tu Street Elementary School, a very overcrowded inner-city school; this is a denselypopulated community consisting of heavy pedestrian traffic making this route unsafe for ourresidents; it is a poorly thought out proposal, which does not address the transportation needs ofour neighborhood.

There are two east to west trains, approximately eight miles apart: the Long Beach Blue Line andthe Green Line on Imperial Boulevard. Running light rail in the same direction as the LongBeach Blue Line in such close proximity (less than a mile apart) is inefficient, illogical, and waste of money. Obviously, this community’s transportation needs was never a primary concernfor the MTA.

Two alternative routes have been submitted to MTA by NIC which will better serve thetransportation needs of all the people of this community. Both of these alternatives consist of aconnector train coming offthe Exposition Line traveling east to Broadway making a right turn--south on Broadway:

FIRST ALTERNATIVE: To Florence, tuming left (east) to Long Beach Boulevard to connect the Long Beach Boulevard Blue Line or

SECOND ALTERNATIVE: To Slauson, turning left (east) to Long Beach to connect to the LongBeach Boulevard Blue Line.

Members of the LACMTABoard of DirectorsSeptember 26, 2002Page Two

With regard to the proposed maintenance/train storage yard, there are other properties along the right-of-way, which would accommodate a train maintenance/storage yard in a more practical, cost-effective, andnon-disruptive manner. Friends 4 Expo have located such a property between 8th Avenue and 11tu Avenuealong Exposition Boulevard to be utilized for such a purpose.

No outreach to our communities was ever endeavored by MTA even after we brought this fact to theattention of MTA’s staff. Meetings which were held were at the initiative of community basedorganizations in our neighborhood. As our community was totally lacking in knowledge that this proposalhad been initiated and progressing, these meetings were held a year and a half after the fact. Theconcentration of outreach performed by MTA was with residents and homeowners’ associations west of LaBrea and USC and Exposition Park Museum representatives. Low-income, minority communities east ofLa Brea were disregarded, discriminated, and disrespected as evidenced by MTA by their total lack ofoutreach.

We ask this Board of Directors:

(1) To remove the non-revenue connector line and train maintenance/storage yard from the ExpositionLine;

(2) That the alternatives presented here today and in our Comment Letter dated June q5, 2001 be givenserious consideration; and

(3)That MTA staff be instructed to conduct serious outreach with community residents and communitybased organizations in the Southeast and South Central Districts at the inception of these types ofproposals enabling our communities the same type of participation in the process as accommodated toother communities of more affluent status.

Thank you for your courtesy and consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours, _

Ms. Cecilia Nunez